Tuesday, 23 February 2016

Further to my earlier post concerning the visit from High Court bailiffs, instructed by Mr Mark James on the 11th February, the Western Mail has published an article which is currently online here.

As I said, offers to pay by instalments were rejected by Mr James. He is quoted in the article as saying that no offers had been made, he goes on to say;

"Regrettably, Jacqui Thompson is once again not telling the truth unfortunately....."Perhaps she will share with media written proof of her offer to pay in instalments? I would be most interested to see it."

Indeed, it is interesting, as I have two pieces of correspondence in front of me, one from my solicitor, to his solicitor dated 22nd March 2013 making an offer of instalments and an email dated 22nd January 2015 from myself to his solicitor.
The 2015 email made a good faith offer of a token monthly payment and I also expressed my willingness to enter negotiations to try and resolve the matter.
Both pieces of correspondence outlined my financial situation.
Both offers were rejected on the instruction of Mr James.

I have shared this information with the 'media' but I assume, as I have now refreshed his memory, that there is now no need to share it with Mr James. He should check his files and tell the truth.

2 comments:

Readers may recall that one of things which apparently outraged Mr James and caused him to sue for libel with public money was the disgraceful suggestion that some of his public pronouncements could cause his nose to grow in length.

Today's Herald has an excellent, superbly amusing and very sarcastic, piece by Cadno regarding the fact that your offer(s) of paying by instalments must have been overlooked by Mr James because he was too busy. Just the reasons he gives for Mr James's busy-ness are well-worth spending 50p for a good read!

'The Claimant is a housewife, mother and amateur blogger. The defendants are a council and a chief executive. It is literally state versus citizen. In a large part, the origins of the entire case derive from the issue of getting ones voice heard at all'

'In light of the evidence, the allegations of perverting the course of justice are unsustainable. This is the most serious allegation and the Claimant deserves to have her reputation vindicated...Mr Davies' evidence was incoherent, confused and contradicted [his] statements given at the time...in short, Mr Davies' evidence of what happened has completely changed and he cannot be relied on'

(From closing submission for the claimant at trial, February 2013)

...In August 2016, following a very belated (three years later) complaint to the police by Mark James that I perverted the course of justice, the investigation was dropped as there was no evidence.

There never was going to be any evidence as I told the truth, on oath, at the time.